Cohesion Policy 2007 13 Ex post evaluation of

Cohesion Policy 2007 - 13 Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 -2006 co-financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (Objective 1 and 2) Work Package 9 “Rural development” Evaluation network meeting Brussels, September 22, 2009 1

Cohesion Policy 2007 - 13 • Subject: Assess the nature and importance of the contribution of the ERDF to the development of rural areas in the 2000– 06 programme period. • Scope: - 5 Member States: France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Spain - 5 regions: Centre, Saxony, Świętokrzyskie, Andalusia, South Sweden 2

Cohesion Policy 2007 - 13 Main tasks • Typology of rural areas in the EU • Literature review, analysis of rural socioeconomic trends in the 90 s • Collect evidence of the role of ERDF in rural areas in 5 Member States and calculate the share of expenditure they receive • 5 regional case studies: respective roles of ERDF/EAGGF/ESF and complementarities 3

Cohesion Policy 2007 - 13 Methodology constraints (1) • OECD: the only internationally used definition of rural areas, based on population density, not on functional links or land use • A EU definition fitted for all cases would compete with how national policies qualify areas as “rural” • “Rurality” is also a local and cultural concept 4

Cohesion Policy 2007 - 13 Methodology constraints (2) • Rural development draws on different regional development theories • Lack of rural data: the ERDF did not specifically targeted rural development • Need to go to the NUTS 3 level to identify expenditure related to rural areas in regional case studies. Rare “pure” rural areas at NUTS 3 level • Data on commuting not available at NUTS 3 level 5

Cohesion Policy 2007 - 13 Methodology constraints (3) • Chosen typology: based on population density and demographic trend (attractiveness) • Chosen hypotheses for ERDF support effects: - infrastructures entails better accessibility - Business, entrepreneurship, R&D, networks entails dynamism and innovation - use of regional resources entails regional growth and quality of life - regional governance entails endogenous development and self confidence 6

Cohesion Policy 2007 - 13 Main findings (1) • Important contribution of ERDF to rural areas: - 28% in Objective 1 (focus on the weakest) - 24% in Objective 2 • Focus on transport, telecommunications environment infrastructures and • Support to business and R&D but in a lower proportion than in urban areas • Less support to social infrastructures, rural initiatives and governance 7

Cohesion Policy 2007 - 13 Main findings (2) • Division of tasks between the funds: clear demarcation at strategic level, less clear at project level • In some Member States common programming framework (France, Sweden) or explicit complementarities (Poland) and common instruments for implementing the different funds at regional level • Lack of visibility of ERDF in rural areas linked to lack of rural policy objective, of a locally managed fund, of adequate information provided to project holders 8

Cohesion Policy 2007 - 13 Main recommendations (1) • Do not design rural typology without clearly spelling out the purpose and the chosen methodology • Cohesion policy should continue to target “weak” areas regardless of their rural or urban character • Member States should delimitate those weak areas according to their different institutional settings 9

Cohesion Policy 2007 - 13 Main recommendations (2) • One strategic framework programme in each programming area embracing all sectors and all aspects of territorial development • Different delivery mechanisms for different type of measures, get closer to the citizens • Two perspectives for the evaluation work: - success of the policy for the citizens in a region/area (quality of life, employment, attractiveness…) - success of the policy for the European tax-payer (needs for aggregated results) 10

Cohesion Policy 2007 - 13 Conclusion • An exploratory evaluation more difficult than anticipated, based on expenditure and qualitative evidence • policy issues raised: - Effectiveness of integrated approach for all type of territory, including rural, however lack of visibility and strategic framework including regional and rural development. - Better governance and local empowerment still needed: how to reconcile the need for European monitoring with the need for ownership of the policy ? 11